Advertisement

Finite Element Model Updating Techniques of Complex Assemblies with Linear and Nonlinear Components

  • Alexandros Arailopoulos
  • Dimitrios GiagopoulosEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

In this work, finite element model updating techniques are presented for identifying the linear and nonlinear parts of dynamic systems using vibration measurements of their components. The measurements are taken to be either response time histories or frequency response functions of linear and nonlinear components of the system. The model updating techniques were coupled with robust and accurate finite element analysis software in order to produce computational effective results. The developed framework is applied to a geometrically complex and lightweight experimental bicycle frame with nonlinear suspension fork components. The identification of modal characteristics of the frame (linear part) is based on an experimental investigation of its dynamic response. The modal characteristics are then used to update the finite element model. The nonlinear suspension components are identified using the experimentally obtained response spectra for each of the components tested separately. Single and multi-objective structural identification methods with appropriate substructuring methods, are used for estimating the parameters (material properties, shell thickness properties and nonlinear properties) of the finite element model, based on minimizing the deviations between the experimental and analytical dynamic characteristics. Finally, the numerical result of the complete system assembly was compared to experimental results of the equivalent physical structure of the bike.

Keywords

System identification Nonlinear dynamics Substructuring 

References

  1. 1.
    Mottershead, J.E., Friswell, M.I.: Model updating in structural dynamics: a survey. J. Sound Vib. 167, 347–375 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuppens, K., Sas, P., Hermans, L.: Evaluation of FRF Based Substructuring and Modal Synthesis Technique Applied to Vehicle FE Data, ISMA 2000, pp. 1143–1150. K.U. Leuven, Leuven (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giagopoulos, D., Natsiavas, S.: Hybrid (numerical-experimental) modeling of complex structures with linear and nonlinear components. Nonlinear Dyn. 47, 193–217 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giagopoulos, D., Natsiavas, S.: Dynamic response and identification of critical points in the superstructure of a vehicle using a combination of numerical and experimental methods. Exp. Mech. 55(3), 529–542 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ewins, D.J.: Modal Testing: Theory and Practice. Research Studies Press, Somerset (1984)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohanty, P., Rixen, D.J.: Identifying mode shapes and modal frequencies by operational modal analysis in the presence of harmonic excitation. Exp. Mech. 45, 213–220 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spottswood, S.M., Allemang, R.J.: On the investigation of some parameter identification and experimental modal filtering issues for nonlinear reduced order models. Exp. Mech. 47, 511–521 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richardson, M.H., Formenti, D.L.: Global curve fitting of frequency response measurements using the rational fraction polynomial method. In: Proceedings of the Third IMAC Conference, Orlando (1985)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papadimitriou, C., Ntotsios, E., Giagopoulos, D., Natsiavas, S.: Variability of updated finite element models and their predictions consistent with vibration measurements. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 19, 630–654 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giagopoulos, D., Papadioti, D.-Ch., Papadimitriou, C., Natsiavas, S.: Bayesian uncertainty quantification and propagation in nonlinear structural dynamics. In: Proceedings of the IMAC-XXXI 2013, Garden Grove (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christodoulou, K., Ntotsios, E., Papadimitriou, C., Panetsos, P.: Structural model updating and prediction variability using Pareto optimal models. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 198(1), 138–149 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ntotsios, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Multi-objective optimization algorithms for finite element model updating. In: International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering (ISMA2008). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, 15–17 September 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mottershead, J., Link, M., Friswell, M.: The sensitivity method in finite element model updating: a tutorial. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.10.012 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allemang, R., Brown, D.: A correlation coefficient for modal vector analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando (1982)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fritzen, C.P., Jennewein, D., Kiefer, T.: Damage detection based on model updating methods. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 12(1), 163–186 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moaveni, B., He, X., Conte, J.P., Restrepo, J.I.: Damage identification study of a seven-story full-scale building slice tested on the UCSD-NEES shake table. Struct. Saf. 32(5), 347–356 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moaveni, B., He, X., Conte, J.P., De Callafon, R.A.: Damage identification of a composite beam using finite element model updating. Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 23(5), 339–359 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber, B., Paultre, P., Proulx, J.: Structural damage detection using nonlinear parameter identification with Tikhonov regularization. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 14, 406–427 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yuen, K.-V., Beck, J.L., Katafygiotis, L.S.: Efficient model updating and health monitoring methodology using incomplete modal data without mode matching. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 13, 91–107 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grafe, H.: Model updating of large structural dynamics models using measured response functions. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College of Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dynamics Section (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grafe, H.: Review of frequency response function updating methods. Technical Report No. 1.01, BRITE-URANUS BRE2-CT94-0946 (1995, May)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rypl, D., Bittnar, Z.: Generation of computational surface meshes of STL models. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Structural Mechanics, Czech Technical University, Prague (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bechét, E., Cuilliere, J.C.: Generation of a finite element MESH from stereolitography (STL) files. Computer-Aided Design, Paris (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bianconi, F.: Bridging the gap between CAD and CAE using STL files. Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Perugia, Perugia (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    DYNAMIS 3.1.1: Solver Reference Guide. DTECH, Thessaloniki (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ANSA and META-Post, BETA CAE Systems S.A., ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandros Arailopoulos
    • 1
  • Dimitrios Giagopoulos
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Western MacedoniaKozaniGreece

Personalised recommendations